Opinion No. 56-0118

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reporting that their engineer “concluded that the storm caused no damage to either the underlying mortar bed or waterproofing membrane”
• noting that it is “[s]ometimes . . . difficult to determine whether a provision is a general or a specific one”
• holding “[i]t was not unreasonable for the agency to conclude § 1231(a)(5)’s prohibition on ‘any relief under this chapter’ forecloses individuals from applying for asylum relief”
• stating that the court’s goal is “to understand the 28 statute as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme and to fit, if possible, all parts into a 1 harmonious whole” (internal quotations and citations omitted)
• rejecting the \incorrect\ assumption \that any individual to whom § 1158(a)(2)(D) applies will necessarily be subject to a reinstated removal order\
• remanding for the BIA to reconsider the petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection in light of, inter alia, Henriquez-Rivas

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).